Might Google Introduce Site Reviews?

Could hand reviews help Google provide better results?

[Slone]

** This post is not intended as another rant, but an introduction to thinking different when solving human error.

Might Google Introduce Site Reviews?

Google might develop a strict criterion before one should submit their request for a review. Site reviews by Google would not be setup to guarantee inclusion back into the SERPs. It provides Google an opportunity to learn what if the Algorithm/Filter changes are working as intended. To our end, benefits come from the chance to clear the air and perhaps getting our website introduced back into the SERPs.

To understand what I am talking about, case examples where a review may need to be submitted.

Example A:
If a site, like in this case ([webmasterworld.com ]) needs to switch a .com to a .uk TLD because Google prefers to organize their SERPs to be geographical, then Google could promote its desires positively.

Example B:
A Company X was dropped from the SERPs due to the results of a “scraper site” Company X could submit a challenge to Google for review.

There are many examples… I am sure we could spew out here, but what I am interested in is the possibility of introducing something like this, or is it even logical?

Sum:
Human error is involved at all ends of each issue in every update, from the Site owner to Google. Productivity comes from working together rather than fighting against the grain in my opinion. It may sound like a Mr. Rodger’s Neighborhood type attitude but sometimes we need to revert to the basics.

-S

[BeeDeeDubbleU]

I think that some form of manual editing would be a very positive move. I suggested something along these lines in this thread but no one showed any interest [webmasterworld.com...]

[MHes]

Getting into any diologue with Jo public or (even worse) with webmasters is something to be avoided. Firstly it makes little financial sense. The money required to service 'site reviews' could either be spent improving automative systems or better still, paid to the employees. The amount of ranting they would have to deal with would be enormous, and inevitably you cannot help many people, who will then go to the press and complain... its better to keep as many doors shut as possible.

[webdev]

They will never do this, its hard enough to get a human response with issues let alone this type of thing. They do use DMOZ however as their base which as we all know is hand edited and reviewd in its own kind of way.

[Slone]

If the review requests met criterion set by Google I believe quite a few people here would pay a fee for a review for re-inclusion. No dialog has to be established between the developer and reviewer either unless a unique situation requires such.

By no means am I suggesting a simplistic form - like DMOZ for example. A well-planned and complex review program with strict submission requirements would control the trash that might “be let in the door” at Google. Language used in the review process would be designed to attract professionals.

When I speak of re-inclusion, I am not suggesting positioning a site back to where they were in the SERPS. A reviewer for example could lift a ban, or filter allowing a site to reenter the SERPS period and ‘naturally’ be repositioned as it normally would.

Again … just thinking.

[egomaniac]

This idea is certainly being considered by one of the Big 3 SEs. I know a VP at one of the Big 3, and he suggested that a similar idea was being considered by their engineering geniuses when we spoke about this a year and a half ago.

He mentioned to me as an example epinions, a consumer review website.

Alexa has user reviews, though hardly anyone uses this feature.

Frankly, it seems extremely difficult to put into practice. And inherently spammable (as the Alexa reviews already are).

[crobb305]

Manual editing would be wonderful for those of us who have suffered dup penalites because of people stealing our content or for hijacking/redirects. Obviously, their alg isn't smart enough to discern an original site that is 4 years old from a spammy redirect url or and spammy scraper sites that are less than a year old and stealing content.

[Chris_D]

Some kind of paid review/ appeal would be a good move.

The current issues where a company is listed in Dmoz - but no longer ranks in Google for a search on its own unique name (unique name - not 'keyword1-keyword2.com') - however suggests that Google isn't even using the human reviewed data it already has at its disposal to determine relevancy.